I Am Made In Bangladesh Too: An Open Letter to American Apparel’s Now-Famous Model

Do you mind if I call you that? I feel like we can be on a first name basis — my mom’s best friend’s daughters being your childhood I’m Bangladeshi, as are you. I’m an Angeleno, as are you. playmates and all. I bet I saw you at one of those Bengali parties back in the days when I used to attend as a teenager, sullenly and reluctantly sitting on the margins. You were likely a toddler then. I’m Bangladeshi, as are you. I’m an Angeleno, as are you. It’s not improbable that our paths may have crossed. We are after all in the same community.

I saw your bare-breasted photograph with “Made in Bangladesh” splayed in the American Apparel print ad and wanted to reach out. Because it’s clear to me that some things must have been missed in translation.

Shunoh, I think it’s great that you felt fully comfortable to express yourself. I want to be clear, there’s no “slut-shaming” to this. I’m all about radical forms of feminine art. I think brown is beautiful, and when you are raised in this vapid city of Los Angeles where White standards of beauty are pushed down our throats, it takes a certain kind of strength to fight all that and declare, “I’m brown, I’m an immigrant, and I’m beautiful too.” Brown skin is underrated in this society and baring breasts when making a political statement has the potential to be that much more profound.

But it’s a fine line between self-expressive and being exotified and commodified. You think you chose to be creative — but in What American Apparel is selling is sex…where the brown woman is objectified.actuality you were plucked by your employer to sell an object. I believe the object you are selling is high-waisted pants, but it’s unclear from the photo. They are rolled down so suggestively. What American Apparel is selling is sex, and in this case, by having “Made in Bangladesh” across your bare breasts, you are selling fetishized sex. One where the brown woman is objectified.

American Apparel is a known American-made clothing company that prides itself on being sweatshop-free and paying “fair” wages (albeit with questionable sexual harassment allegations against CEO Dov Charney). They are selling their clothing. Thus, we can ascertain that the message in the photo implicitly rejects the notion of buying Bangladesh made “objects.” The implication is that Bangladesh is bad, and American is good. Burka-ed Muslim women are bad, and bare-breasted “former” Muslims with newly found American freedoms are good. Right?

But you’re fine with that rejection, right Maks? Because in the press release you state that in high school you distanced yourself from your Islamic upbringing. That you don’t identify as Bengali or American, and you don’t fit into conventional narratives, and that’s why you are essential to Los Angeles.

The thing is I’m Bengali, American, a Muslim, a non-hijabi woman, and I’m also an Angeleno. I work constantly to break the mainstream conventional narrative I’m constantly placed in. And I don’t think that makes me any less important to the mosaic that is LA. In fact, LA is littered with women like this, like me. My Los Angeles embraces this diversity and my mosaic is beautiful. Whereas the LA in this marketing campaign is tinged with Islamophobia and xenophobia.

We live in a global economy where we need to apply pressure to large corporations like GAP and Wal-Mart to require international factories to hold to a certain standard of safety. We are beyond the point where buying only American-made is the simple solution. Boycotting Bangladesh made products means we’re boycotting the Deshi-made women that helped get us here — our Ammas and Khalas and Chachis. Amadher bhon, our sisters. We just want to make sure they are safe and can survive.

Don’t you see, Appu? That by having “Made In Bangladesh” splayed across your breasts, American Apparel is commodifying a recent tragedy that has killed thousands of people.American Apparel is commodifying a recent tragedy that has killed thousands of people. They are taking the death of thousands of people in Bangladesh as a marketing opportunity to sell their clothes in America. Don’t you see how morbid that is? Don’t you see how your image has been exploited and how you’ve been manipulated?

I am #MadeInBangladesh too. When I was little, I used to hide in the clothing racks at the mall and would look at the clothing labels for the “Made in Bangladesh” tag. I would run to show my Mom when I found one — she used to get excited. She was nostalgic and lonely. She missed her motherland. Back in the 80s, the “Made in Bangladesh” label was one of the few things I remembered that connected my American home to my mother’s Bangladeshi motherland. It was in that migration hyphenation that we created home.

35 Comments

Do you mind if I call you that? I feel like we can be on a first name basis or not but it lets me start in the same derogatory way you started your article. Who the fuck do you think you are? Whats with the condescending ‘you think you chose to be creative but actually i am a total rando who is also a mind reader’. I doubt models think anything other than to model. Do you think she came up with the idea for the ad and wrote that copy? Also, you sound an awful lot like a slutshamer. You insinuated she’s a slut cause she posed topless. What she should notice is that you are using her as a marketing opportunity to sell your shitty article. There’s a fine line between being thoughtful and shamelessly using a trending topic to get hits and tell us about yourself. You say brown is underrated and that white standards of beauty are being shoved down your throat then why do u have a problem with a brown girl being objectified. People should not have a problem with american apparel highlighting safety issues in the bangladeshi garments industry if they’re making clothes properly (although there CEO is sketch). Why should we sweep our problems under the rug. I know that the garments industry is big in bangladesh and it helps empower women but it also empowers wealthy individuals, some of whom don’t give a fuck about their employees safety and why would they? We’re an impoverished densely populated country with a ridiculous number people that aren’t educated. If these people could go to school do you think they would be working at a sweatshop.

“We’re an impoverished densely populated country with a ridiculous number people that aren’t educated. If these people could go to school do you think they would be working at a sweatshop.”

– We have the highest number of educated women in South Asia, more women and in school and colleges then men and boys. We reached human development goals of education early, i.e. more girls passing secondary school than any other, etc. I can go on but our girls are getting educated.

– Last sentence: “If these people could go to school do you think they would be working at a sweatshop.” <– basic economics, but I don't want to go into that. Not all educated people have access to jobs, per se. This is true in Bangladesh, and America, and a lot of other places. It is the story of many countries where we have a huge population of educated young people and no jobs (read up on Arab Spring and demands of young people across North Africa, Middle East, and South Asia).

Don't offend Bangladesh by calling it impoverished. We have been making so much progress that it astounds researchers and academics, and politicians and wealthy owners of garments industries alike.

It is fine to attack the author here, but sorry, had to pick on some of the stuff here that seemed unrelated.

Another thing:
"People should not have a problem with american apparel highlighting safety issues in the bangladeshi garments industry if they're making clothes properly"<– not everyone is privileged to be able to work for a fare wage in a place like America. Read up on the 'American dream' and why people from developing countries want to cross the border in the first place.

49.91/161 million people live below the poverty line in Bangladesh, thats twice the population of Australia. Thats more people than the respective populations of 217 countries out of 243. Our literacy rate is around 59%, thats 66 MILLION people who CAN’T with understanding, read and write a short, simple statement on their everyday life. Thats more than the population of 220/243 countries.

We’ve only astounded researchers because our GDP is SO low per capita, small increases seem higher in terms of percentages. If our output is lets say 10$/per capita then an increase in per capita of 5$ would be a 50% increase. If our per capita income was lets say 1000$/ per capita a 5$ increase would only mean growth of 0.5%. There is absolutely nothing astounding about that, and let me assure you that no actual researchers and academics are baffled.

If ALL these people did go to school, our level of skill would rise and there would be less people looking for work (there is more people in the workforce because people are SO poor they need their kids to go wash dishes at some random house). People would refuse to work in dire conditions at 20 cents an hour. Our export would become less competitve but there would be structural changes and people would have jobs in other industries as they now would have transferable skills as a result of education. How many developed countries have sweatshops? Anyway seems like you are suggesting these people don’t get education so they can keep working at sweatshops?

Bangladesh is impoverished, more uneducated people in the country than an entire continent. If you think stating the issues is offensive because we are making some kind of progress that only looks good on paper then you are part of the problem.

You are right ‘privilege is not uniform’. Thats why you can’t cry when we fuck up and other people use that against us.

People in South Asia live in complex societies where the extremely rich live among the extremely poor and extremely underprivileged. Further South Asian citizenry tends to deal with success and failures in extremes – we tend to over over-emphasize on one over the other.
Lots of good has been happening for people. But why cant we say a lot more has to keep happening for while before we can afford to be happy for our country, our people?

There has to be a way to keep the Hassans and the Irfans on the same side – they clearly already are – they both love their Bangladesh, albeit from different ends. Why can we not in South Asia build upon these things and feelings we share instead of finding something to disagree over?
I am an observer from a fellow South Asian community.

I couldn’t read all the way down. I’m Bangladeshi and I have no problems with this ad. Bangladesh is not a brand, codified by it’s culture. The writer seems to be implying that there is a proper way to go about it, one that she has adopted and that treads the fine line we all learn to tread as Bengali women. Which is basically to inhibit ourselves for the sake of a precious and narrowly defined national identity. Would we be reading this if it had said Made in India? No. Because India is a multiplicity and accepts itself as is.

And to bring LA culture into the conversation at all was a non argument. Bringing LA into a conversation that argues against individual expression is myopic.

And I agree w the previous comment. She’s a model, it’s a job. Not a commentary on the ethics of the garments industry in Bangladesh. AA may be trying to make the Bangladesh label more hip. That’s the message I get. That not all Bangladeshi women stitch the labels on in poverty. Some get to be on billboards, proudly thwarting that picture of a country that is known mostly for poverty, disaster & corruption. I like that she’s changing the conversation and the image surrounding Bangladesh. If you don’t like it, it’s your opinion. But don’t try to stifle it with that age old argument our mothers have been making, that it’s not proper or seemly.

Also – what does the exits being blocked in the fire have anything to do with AA? It has everything to do with the Bangladeshi government not caring enough to enforce building codes and safeguard their own people. No one else is responsible for that tragedy but the people who made the building and ran that factory.

I think this article shows the less than lovely part of what happens when Muslims use the language of the academic Left in order to shame others. There simply is no dialogue; it is instantly assumed that our ex-Muslim voices and views are inherently tainted and Islamophobic; we’re considered Uncle Toms. And for those of us who willingly participate in the modern capitalist or media machine, we are told that our objectifying world views have been engineered by Hollywood and that we are just tools of our own oppression.

And hey, replace “Hollywood” in that last sentence with “Jews” and you’ll know what many of us ex-Muslims and Muslims grew up hearing in our mosques and in our homes. I deeply doubt that the author is antisemitic (the overwhelming majority of Muslims raised in the West aren’t), but one belief in a magical omnipresent oppressor has simply been swapped out for another. The narrative is the same.

Western media has a history of showing Bangladeshi women as victims, and here is an instance where it’s the opposite. Would it be better if this was “accurate” with a picture of her fully-clothed, working on a Singer machine in Dhaka, looking all happy? Then we would argue that the ad is fetishizing sweatshop labor.

Ironically, the much-needed outcome of this ad isn’t a discussion about the garment industry, but the accepted gender roles of Bangladeshi women. Religion and cultural identity have somehow become intertwined in a country that was founded on secularism

I think that the author’s point was that she is, in a way, a victim of a lot of things — racial fetishization, Western advertising practices, etc. I said it below, but tying sexuality to the very intense issue of the BD garment industry strikes me as disrespectful and an attempt at shock value — and i am quite pro female bodies, as a loud and sex positive feminist.
But I agree wholeheartedly with the second half of your comment.

This is a terrible article. The author begins by insulting and belittling the model and her choices, then proceeds to patronizingly victimize the model, and concludes by offering her a “supportive” hand toward the more socially-acceptable path. The disgustingly condescending tone of the article is baffling.

Maks is not a victim. Stop treating her as such. Do not disrespect her by speaking to her as if she was manipulated. That, in itself, is manipulative! It is highly doubtful that she was unwillingly forced into modeling for this advertisement.

What seems most surprising is that the author’s initial course of action was to shoot the messenger. Why blame the model for something that ultimately was not her doing? If the primary point of concern is regarding the ad’s message, that is a matter to be taken up with the company– the people who created and executed the ad. If the prominent issue is that of a Bangladeshi woman bearing her chest, that would be the model’s concern. However, it should be noted that that would be classified as “slut-shaming.”

What I took away from the ad is that Bangladeshi women are powerful, strong individuals who will take a stand for their beliefs and rights. It sheds light on the unjust situations most women from that country are faced with and encourages viewers to provide aid in any way possible.

What I took away from this article is that, unfortunately, women are the first to judge and berate other women. Are our patriarchal settings really so deeply embedded into our foundations? The author refers to the model as her sister (I’m assuming ‘appu’ means ‘sister’?) and yet fails to provide for her the patience, understanding, and sensitivity with which one’s sister should be provided. I strongly urge the author to re-evaluate her misguided anger.

The incredibly patronizing, smug tone of this article kept me from making it even halfway through.

I wonder if part of our read of this ad is based on American Apparel’s infamously sleazy, sexist ad campaigns. How differently would we read it if it were unrelated and didn’t have this context/baggage attached? How about if it worded the description of her personal cultural heritage and identity differently, while still conceding that she made the perfectly valid choice to distance herself from aspects of her culture she didn’t relate to?

I think the ad is in bad taste for a number of reasons–though I’ll admit that I haven’t sat down to think about how much AA’s branding strategies are impacting my read on it just yet. But to talk down to Maks and assume a total lack of agency and awareness on her part is extremely insulting. There’s no sisterhood and solidarity in that, and the tone makes the Bengali terms of endearment scattered throughout this article seem even more condescending as a result.

I thank Tanzila for pointing out that simply boycotting Bangladeshi products does far more harm to the people that many “protesters” pretend to care about.

I’m Bangladeshi. I grew up there. And within that time I saw the garments industry rise into prominence as a major commercial sector in the Bangladeshi economy. If not for these factories, there are many women who would be earning a fifth of what they now earn. Many others would be forced into prostitution or begging on the streets.

Don’t get me wrong. I support any call to improve the conditions these women work in. Safety, good working conditions, better pay, labor rights, fewer hours, etc. But when the overly zealous in the West start demanding boycotts of the entire nation’s garments, they endanger the very lives they pretend to care about. I’ve seen women and children, barefoot, scrounge through landfills to pick at bits of rotten garbage to find food which amounts to their meals. That is what they would have many of these workers, and their children, sent back to.

I tend to consider myself somewhat liberal. But I do feel that many liberals, the activisty kind who look for any excuse to raise their voice, tend only to do what makes them able to say they’ve done a good thing and go no further than that. The practical implications of their activism isn’t even considered.

With regards to the Rana Plaza tragedy, the moment I heard of it, I predicted that it would be found that some government official was bribed into allowing its construction and low standards. If not the current, then the previous administration. Indeed, that corruption was found to be true. Foreign companies can’t see what goes on under the desks of Bangladeshi government officials. If condemnation is due, it must be directed to the government of Bangladesh. Rana Plaza happened because somebody bribed some government official to okay a death trap in exchange for money. Yet I’ve heard few, actually no, voices demanding that Bangladesh’s government start pretending it cares for the welfare of its people.

In short, the benefits to the working people of Bangladesh because of the garments industry far exceeds the harms. While I support any call for improving standards and labor rights, I still feel good buying “made in bangladesh” clothing. I’m wearing one such sweater right now.

While I agree with Tanzila’s broader points, I think attacking the model isn’t right. And a passive aggressive attack on the model this is. Me being Bangladeshi gives me absolutely nothing in the way of a right to lecture her on what she does for a living, irrespective of my personal views. I don’t see how anyone concludes that because one is of the same race/nationality/religion, that person has some kind of say on what someone else of that category thinks or says or does. I have yet to see any white person ever to initiate a lecture towards another white person using race or ethnicity or nationality as something that lends authority. Yet time and time I’ve seen this amongst my fellow Bangladeshis. And the target is usually women.

Unrelated, I had to look up “Angeleno”. I mistakenly presumed it meant “someone who was at some point adopted by Angelina Jolie”. You learn something every day.

the letter strikes me as patronizing and self-congratulatory. OTOH, the garment sector has made it very hard for my relatives to find young female servants anymore, so in general i’m rooting for non-american textiles in this game. conflicted.

Exact same experience. When I was last in BD, the domestic workers started demanding twice what they did only a year before. And this was in the 90s. The garments industry has given them options they could otherwise not hope for. It’s not even a debate for me. If I see “made in Bangladesh” on an article of clothing at Gap or Navy or wherever that I’m considering getting, it’s as good as bought.

“I want to be clear, there’s no “slut-shaming” to this. I’m all about radical forms of feminine art. I think brown is beautiful, and when you are raised in this vapid city of Los Angeles where White standards of beauty are pushed down our throats, it takes a certain kind of strength to fight all that and declare, “I’m brown, I’m an immigrant, and I’m beautiful too.” Brown skin is underrated in this society and baring breasts when making a political
statement has the potential to be that much more profound.”

And yet the haters continue to hate…perhaps they skimmed the part where she makes it clear that this isn’t at all about “decency” or “traditional Muslim values”, but entirely about American Apparel’s attempt to cash in on the recent series of tragedies in the Bdesh garment sector. In Taz’s own words:

“We live in a global economy where we need to apply pressure to large corporations like GAP and Wal-Mart to require international factories to hold to a certain standard of safety.
We are beyond the point where buying only American-made is the simple solution. Boycotting Bangladesh made products means we’re boycotting the Deshi-made women that helped get us here — our Ammas and Khalas and Chachis. Amadher bhon, our sisters. We just want to make sure they are safe and can survive.”

Nobody else called the model a slut. Why introduce that phrase? Imagine starting a conversation with an obese person by saying, “hey, not to fat-shame you or anything, but…”. What else could you say that could be more damaging than that opening disclaimer?

I agree that the hostile tone towards the author is unwarranted. One can disagree without…

Pressure can be applied to the manufacturers, but all that pressure will do is have the companies withdraw entirely from countries like Bangladesh. It would cost them less to manufacture products in America than to take on the role that Bangladesh’s government is supposed to perform in monitoring workers conditions and rights.

I really do not believe it was Taz’s intent to underhandedly insult or otherwise slight Maks. Given the long-overdue national attention that slut-shaming has been getting recently, she was simply anticipating and pre-empting an accusation-a logical and sensible measure taken by any author of a persuasive piece (and a tactic we law students are taught to routinely employ in our legal memoranda and briefs).

There is no way garment manufacturing jobs are ever coming back to the US-at least not cheap garments. America has long gone through it’s “garments phase” of manufacturing in the 19th Century and we are now a services-based economy. Like South Korea and Thailand before it, it is Bangladesh’s turn to go through its “t-shirt phase.”

Also, manufacturing in Bangladesh can be both safe AND feasible. Just look at all the American and European companies who have supported either the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh and Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety-they would not be doing so if it was fatal to their bottom line. Garments manufacturing is here to stay in Bangladesh (at least until the day it develops a more sophisticated economy insha’Allah), and it is all of our responsibility to help make it as safe as possible.

Because unfortunately if she didn’t say that preemptively, any critique or discussion of the article would just be “you’re just hating on her because you think she’s a slut!” so she was explicit in saying that that’s not the case. unfortunately the majority of the comments are going that way anyways…

yea but unfortunately that was the case from the tone of the rest of her article where she takes some moral high ground.
‘I believe the object you are selling is high-waisted pants, but it’s unclear from the photo. They are rolled down so suggestively.’
‘you are selling fetishized sex’
maybe the writer should focus on writing love stories cause obviously nobody is commodying love to sell to the masses right. radical love (name of her monthly column) more like fetishized love.

Taking the “moral high ground”* does not mean Taz is slut shaming, nor does it mean she is against sexual provocation. But context matters. Premise matters. Motivation matters. Power dynamics matter. This model who is patting herself on the back thinking she did a brave and artsy thing is getting played and is complicit in American Apparel’s campaign to objectify and disenfranchise Bangladeshi women.

*If that’s what you want to call making a reasoned argument based on more facts than the model seems to have.

If she chooses to bare her breasts then it’s really her decision. Good to know that you too grew up in LA but not everyone who grows up abroad is the same. I too was born in the UK but I turned out very different from my friends who were born there. If they choose to bare their breasts for whatever reason, who am I to write them a so-called ‘open letter’.

And one more point – it’s easy to say a lot about your motherland when you’re sitting in LA or wherever. You have no idea about the ground realities and it’s a bit naive to think that advocating your love for your precious motherland with a tribute music album, or boycotting GAP or Walmart will help the country in any way while people like me or my family who have decided not to live abroad (even though we’ve had our chance) but stay here and do something bloody good for this country.

Your attitude, which leaves people tiptoeing around what should be normal/nonsensitive issues or ideas, partially contributes to the unfortunate continued racism (on both the minority and majority spectrums) in the United States.

Oh and enjoy your Made In Bangladesh clothes; I hope your criticism of this model’s artistic expression makes you feel better about purchasing clothes made in sweatshops located in the country you claim to be defending. I bet your elitist and hypocritical attitude truly makes the “radical changes” you invite the model to make (not).

Oh and enjoy your Made In Bangladesh clothes; I hope your criticism of this model’s artistic expression makes you feel better about purchasing clothes made in sweatshops located in the country you “love” so much. Your attitude truly has made some “radical” changes.

Dear Taz,
I’m Latino by name and appearance, but my grandfather is from Afghanistan. I consider myself part non-Desi South Asian, more Pashtuns live in Pakistan than Afghanistan. In Pakistan, Pasthuns are the second largest ethnic group. I’m sure you are familiar with this fact.
Not to offend my fellow Americans, but many probably aren’t aware that Bangladesh is a Muslim majority country, because unlike Afghanistan, it doesn’t end in -stan. Your claim of Islamophpobia is a bit of a stretch.
Like others have mentioned, safety standards and unblocked exits are the responsibility of Bangladesh and those in the local garment industry.
Furthermore, not all Bangladeshis are Muslim, some are Hindu and others are Buddhists. To equate Bengali with Islam is well problematic, because you have West Bengal in India. You have sizable Hindu Bengalis on that side of the border.
There are multiple ways to express cultural pride. Her choice in a city that is majority Latino (Mexican), “white as beautiful” is not my reality when I walk through the City of Angels as a fellow Angeleno. But then again, I don’t see her participation as threatening, if anything, it is “benign.” She hasn’t been the first nor the last woman of color to bare all on a spread.
I know women in Islam are stereotyped. I know women are defined by hijab, jilbab, dupatta, shalwar kameez, chador, abaya, rousari, etc., it’s not fair, but we should rise above the occasion and realize we all engage in the struggle differently.

I really didn’t take it as slut shaming at all? Not only because she states that much, but because these is about being a pawn in the Western objectification of bodies of women of color. I think tying sexuality to the much larger issue of Bangladesh’s garment industry was insensitive and done for shock value, on the part of AA. I’m pro female bodies, especially of color, but this looks to me more like straight up turning her into an object. A product, if you will.

I see your point as far as AAs motives tying Bangladesh’s garment industry to sexuality. But AAs goal is to drum up publicity for the fact that they don’t have sweatshops globally (all of their products are made in the US). How do they draw publicity to that – how they always draw publicity in all their ads – scantily clad women.

Now, I could understand if this article was a rant against the advertising and co-opting of Bangladeshi sexuality against American Apparel – but it wasn’t. It was a rant against Maks directly, over how she chose to express herself. And I make the point of ‘radical’ a central theme in my article – because if you take American Apparel out of it – which I think is fair, because Ahmed focuses directs her letter specifically at Maks – then you have to ask yourself a question of how does the image stand on its own as a radical form of self-expression. I think its fair to say it is a radical form of self-expression in the desi/indian/Bangladeshi community.

And as far as the exploitation of the image – everyone is exploiting – AA is exploiting Maks and her sexualized image, Maks is exploiting AA for the global platform on which to express herself, and Ahmed is exploiting Maks and this controversy to promote her own brand of ‘radicalism’ as being a much more purer breed (whatever Ahmed’s radicalism is – its not clear).

At the very least – what we can say from this ad, is that Maks drew a line in the sand, she alienated a whole community that she is, or at least was, part of. And she made people choose sides – either they supported a Bengali-American women expressing her sexuality, whatever the reason – or they didn’t. Ahmed only chooses to alienate a single, individual woman over the way she chose to express herself.

My overarching question is, why do you think that it is unethical of AA to have referenced sweatshops in Bangladesh?

1. Isn’t AA taking the relatively ethical path by choosing not to contract out their manufacturing need to third world countries that abuse their employees in sweatshops?
(You could argue Bangladesh’s economy, but AA is actually helping their domestic economy by hiring labor at home. Moreover, they are not morally obligated to hire labor from foreign countries especially if it means that the foreign labor would be put through torture in order to produce their clothes).

2. If AA is sacrificing their profit margin in order to manufacture clothes “more ethically” (and hence incurring higher expenses) then don’t they have the right to let the public know about their Brand Positioning and the extra mile they’re going to remain “ethically correct”?
(If you’ll argue that AA is “commoditifying” the tragedy, isn’t that what all corporations in a capitalist society do? If a company’s negligence causes a nuclear leak leading to hundreds of death, isn’t it reasonable for the next company to advertise how “safe” and “careful” they are with their energy products in order to regain customer faith and capitalize on their sacrifice to create a better product? So basically, is it fair to blame American Apparel when nearly ALL companies are legally obligated to their shareholders to make the best of what they have? Shouldn’t you blame the entire institution of capitalism instead?)

3. Last, how does the usage of sexually provocative imagery link to the Rana Plaza disasters. I feel like these two things are mutually exclusive, where the nudity is for attracting attention and the sweatshop reference is for informing everyone about their ethical manufacturing processes. So adding another question to this, would you have reacted this badly if the Nude Bangladeshi woman was NOT present in this ad campaign but the message was the same (attacking Islam, sweatshops, etc.)?

I am sorry, but this is a ridiculously patronizing, slut shaming article with some irrelevant facts and personal anecdotes thrown in for fillers and drama. I find the “made in Bangladesh” sign a bit distasteful myself, but I wouldn’t go up on a soap box to preach my judgemental opinions to her. It is her body which IS made in Bangladesh, whether some of us like it or not, and she can do with it as she pleases. How she expresses her identity is not a national issue for the culture defenders to go all up in arms for. Lets stop the finger pointing and make some more of those wonderful Beats for Bangladesh albums. Kudos on that.